Andrew MacKay: In supporting the Home Secretary's condolences, may I remind him that a particularly vicious crime was committed 18 months ago in my constituency? Two teenagers were stabbed to death in Finchampstead and the case is now before the Crown Court. At the time and afterwards, with the backing of Ministers, I gave the victims' families assurances that action would be taken, but in light of the latest dreadful murders over the past few days, I think that they all have the right to feel that we have collectively let them down. What more can we do?

Patricia Hewitt: In the written ministerial statements of 7 and 13 March, I set out the Department of Health's plan for an immediate review of the first round of the new national recruitment and selection process for doctors in postgraduate training. As part of the modernising medical careers reforms of postgraduate medical training, new speciality training programmes will be introduced in August 2007.
	To support implementation, a new national recruitment and selection process was introduced earlier this year, facilitated by the online medical training application services. That process sets out national recruitment and selection criteria and documentation and standards, thus replacing the countless local application processes that had previously been in place. The new arrangements were developed with the help of the medical royal colleges, trainee doctors and others. We will continue to work with them to ensure that trainee doctors are properly supported and fairly treated, and that the NHS is able to train and recruit the best doctors for the future.
	Doctors have been applying for their preferred specialty training programme since 22 January and interviews have already begun. A large number of posts will not be filled in the first round and we have stressed to those interviewing in round 1 that they should not appoint unless they are absolutely satisfied with the calibre of candidates. It is clear that there have been concerns about the selection process, and that the process as a whole has created a high degree of insecurity amongst applicants, and, indeed, more widely in the profession. We therefore commissioned an immediate review to establish what had gone well and what needed to be improved to create greater confidence in the process.
	The review is independent. It is being led by Professor Neil Douglas, vice-president of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and president of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. Members of the review group include representatives of the royal colleges, the British Medical Association, the four United Kingdom health Departments and employers. The review group has considered a wide range of evidence and listened carefully to the concerns of the profession and NHS employers. As a result, the review group has agreed, and the Department is implementing, immediate action, but the group will also continue its work throughout March.
	The review group decided that round 1 should continue, with a number of changes to strengthen implementation at every level. All eligible applicants for level 3 and 4 speciality training will be guaranteed an interview for their first or second choice of training post. All applicants at ST1—specialty training level 1—who have not been shortlisted for any interviews will have their applications reviewed and may be offered an interview in round 1. If not, they will be offered career guidance and support to enter round 2. All applicants for ST2 who have not been shortlisted for interview will be offered a face-to-face review with a trained medical advisor to determine whether they meet the shortlisting criteria. Those who meet the criteria may also be offered an interview in round 1. Those who are not selected for interview will be offered support to enter round 2.
	As a result of those changes, agreed and asked for by the review group, we expect more than 5,000 more doctors to be interviewed in round 1. We will also publish on the MMC and MTAS websites details of competition ratios by specialty and entry level to help applicants to consider their options for the second round, together with further advice and information for candidates. In addition, further significant changes will be made to the application form and the scoring system to improve selection in the second round. The revised approach will be tested and agreed with the royal colleges, junior doctors, postgraduate deans and employers. I am very grateful to Professor Douglas and his colleagues for their continuing work on the review group. We will publish the group's final report once it is completed.

Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State allow me to emphasise how inadequate the previous system was? Did not she receive, as I did, complaints from women doctors and black doctors that they did not get a fair look-in for training opportunities, and that they felt that the old system was run as an old boy network? And can she give an undertaking to one junior doctor who emailed me: will a majority of the review panel be composed of people who did not set up the original scheme?

Patricia Hewitt: As I said when I cited the independent Post-graduate Medical Education and Training Board, the scoring system and the whole process for applications was developed by the post-graduate deans, working with the Department and other partners. It is not up to Ministers to determine the number of points that should be awarded for different aspects of what is inevitably a complex system. The review group will be able to consider that as it examines other aspects of the system. If it wants to recommend changes, we will, of course, take that seriously.

Ian McCartney: That is a fair question. I have already indicated in consultation that the next sector that I would like to see join is water. We do intend to build on this start over time, but if changes are to be made they will have to be made by consultation. That is critical.
	Part 2 of the Bill will, for the first time, give consumers guaranteed access to redress schemes that have the teeth to enforce their awards. The Bill will enable Ministers to require suppliers or service providers in the energy and postal services sectors to belong to redress schemes. That will give consumers not only confidence that their complaint will be resolved but access to compensation and redress where that is warranted.
	The redress provisions in the Bill have been strengthened by changes resulting from discussion in the other place. Gas transporters and electricity distributors have been brought within the scope of the redress schemes. We have also made it absolutely clear that the new national consumer council can investigate complaints relating to threatened disconnection of gas or electricity supplies as well as actual disconnection. That also relates to the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) about vulnerable consumers. Furthermore, the new national consumer council can investigate complaints from consumers who use prepayment meters, where disconnection arises as a result of a failure in the prepayment system. Those changes provide yet further protection for consumers, especially the most vulnerable consumers in our society.

Susan Kramer: I hope that a multiple scheme system would operate like that, but I am concerned. Because the schemes will make their money from the number of customers they attract, when so much is a matter of interpretation and so many issues are subjective there will be a great temptation to weaken schemes, rather than to strengthen them.
	The Minister has spoken about one of our most fundamental concerns—the fact that the Bill does not cover the lettings industry, which is worth £12 billion. Although he implied that that would be dealt with in a sort of phase 2, I ask that some work be done now so that at least the principle of including lettings is added to the Bill. Delay in such an area would be unfair to consumers. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) made the point that people who rent are more likely than those who buy to be vulnerable and to have difficulties in taking on the system; that underscores the importance of getting action on lettings.
	Shelter conducted an interesting case study that showed that some people were charged as much as £300 in fees for the simplest lettings processes, which is completely out of kilter with the amount of work involved. The Bill would give no opportunity for redress in such circumstances. I do not understand, either, why the definition of what is an estate agent or what is estate agency work cannot be adapted to include developers who sell their own properties, whether they sell them off-plan or after they have been built. That is a huge loophole.
	As was mentioned often by those who spoke on behalf of my party in the other place, it is completely unacceptable to have a maximum penalty of only £1,000 for operating outside the scheme. We recognise that that has been increased from £500, but we will continue to seek an upward adjustment. The average estate agency commission on a single sale is more than £3,000; that should be the minimum fine for a first offence, rising to a far higher sum if there are future offences. We have suggested the sum of £10,000, which, interestingly, I also heard being suggested today.
	The redress scheme does not include any capacity to monitor what is going on in the industry. That will continue to be the responsibility of consumers at large, Which? or the BBC. That raises in my mind questions about the Government's approach to having negative licensing, rather than positive as well as negative licensing. The fact that almost anyone can set up as an estate agent without a single qualification for the job is to me, and I believe, to most consumers—both purchasers and sellers—completely unacceptable.
	Consumer dissatisfaction with estate agents is high. The Office of Fair Trading report, having first said that nine out of 10 people buying or selling a home used an estate agent, goes on to say that around a quarter of them were dissatisfied—a high level of dissatisfaction. However, few of those people made a formal complaint to the OFT. That is a difficult and challenging process and people do not have the time to do it. They want to get the business over and done with. The industry does not have many fans. It has done its own research and found that only one person in 10 thought that one could usually trust an estate agent.
	In 2005 the voluntary ombudsman scheme, to which only two thirds of agents belong, received a whopping 6,000 complaints. Anyone who saw BBC1's "Whistleblower" programme in March 2006 will have heard about a whole culture of dirty tricks. For most people a house purchase is the largest investment they will ever make. For many it is their retirement nest egg, and a purchase that they will make very few times in their lives. Many people make a purchase in a new part of the country, in an area that they do not know and where they have few points of reference. In such circumstances no one would dream of using an unqualified solicitor and expecting them to provide the necessary paperwork for a house purchase. However, we do expect people to employ a possibly unqualified estate agent, and that seems unacceptable to me.
	A redress scheme is all well and good, but surely it would be better to prevent the problem with proper training and qualifications for estate agents. Indeed, the National Association of Estate Agents and Which?—two different sides of the coin—both support that approach. We would not need to invent the qualifications as there is an NVQ level 3, introduced three years ago, which would be an adequate qualification. I mentioned the Earl of Caithness at the beginning of my speech, but his small attempt to amend section 22 of the Estate Agents Act 1979, which sets out standards of competence for estate agents, was defeated.
	I lived for many years in the US, where every estate agent has to be licensed. It is not a barrier to competition, but having bought and sold houses in both countries, I can say that the level of service available in the US, where I had a qualified and licensed agent, was a world away from the quality of service in the UK. I hear similar reports from almost everybody to whom I talk. Therefore, I ask the Government to reconsider that issue.
	I hope that, as they have suggested, the Government have an open mind on many of the potential improvements that could be made to the Bill. We all want quality protection for consumers. None of us wants to waste money, but bad practice is costly to the consumer, the economy and the taxpayer. Let us not make a false economy. I hope that in the next phases of the Bill's passage we can add many provisions that will strengthen consumer protection and make it more effective.

Desmond Turner: I shall be brief. I welcome the Bill. It will greatly strengthen consumer protection and make it more transparent and accessible to the public, which is devoutly to be welcomed. However, an opportunity is being missed. This Bill is a useful legislative vehicle of a kind, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) pointed out, that does not come along very often—perhaps every 25 or 30 years. It would be wise to make the most of it.
	I am in a curious position today. I little thought when I entered Parliament that I would end up speaking with the backing of estate agents—not an element of society with whom I normally associate with—but the National Association of Estate Agents will, I think, endorse my brief remarks on the regulation, or licensing, of estate agents, in particular of letting agents.
	The buy-to-let and private rental sectors have mushroomed in recent years and are particularly prevalent in my constituency. For that reason, I am glad that the Government's new national tenancy deposit scheme is starting up, as it will be important. It will, for instance, save thousands of my constituents from being—literally—robbed of their deposits by unscrupulous letting agents. Money is being withheld for no genuine reason. Of course, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) pointed out, that is not the only way in which unscrupulous letting agents fleece vulnerable tenants. By definition, people in the private rented sector are more vulnerable; they cannot obtain mortgages and do not have the income to get on to the property ladder, so they are at the mercy of letting agents who have all sorts of ways of charging wholly unreasonable fees. In fact some of the activities I have come across can only be described as scandalous.
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has for the moment set his face against positive licensing, but will he reconsider that position during the passage of the Bill through the House? It seems to me that although the redress schemes are welcome and necessary and should be used, far fewer people would have to resort to them if estate agents were licensed. There would then be a reasonable expectation of minimum standards of professional competence and integrity, and a code of conduct would inhibit cowboy elements. There would thus be fewer transgressions that caused members of the public to have recourse to the redress scheme.

James Duddridge: We have heard passionate speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the consumer, consumer rights and a consumer voice, even if that terminology is being dropped. Although Ministers and Members in general are quite low in the league table of public opinion, with estate agents slightly above them, the debate will go some small way towards encouraging us up the league table—hopefully faster than estate agents.
	In the private sector, I once had the privilege of working with a civil service permanent secretary, who said, "If you've got a problem, don't try to reorganise it—sort it out." While I am broadly supportive of the Bill, I am worried that the Government are trying to reorganise. I am especially worried about Postwatch and postal services. Postal services are a big issue in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) talked about a possible growth in Members' postbags, but my postbag is quite large already, perhaps in no small part because of the survey of sub-post offices that I carried out. The survey showed that 86 per cent. were worried about the removal of the Post Office card account, while more than 71 per cent. said that they would lose staff. Several hon. Members mentioned that 2,500 post offices are likely to close, and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) said that it is likely that there will be an additional series of voluntary closures. There will thus be a massive change in the postal arena at a time of massive regulatory change.
	The Minister for Trade said that working across sectors would be beneficial, but I am deeply concerned that we will see the loss of a single voice for, and a single expert on, energy, water and postal services. There has been talk of removing the chief inspector of prisons, which was blocked only because of a debate in the other place. I am worried that we are removing strong and passionate voices for the sectors that I cited.
	Not all voices need to come from the Government. People do not go to watchdogs such as Postwatch; they are much more likely to go to the television programme "Watchdog", or Which? I have noticed that correspondence that I receive on which Which? or "Watchdog" have been copied in is more likely to receive a fast response than a letter copied to one of the official Government regulators, so such bodies carry more weight in many ways.
	Let me turn to estate agents. We have debated whether the Bill should be extended to letting agents. From reading the popular papers, I am conscious that there is, especially at the upper end of the marketplace, an increasing grey market involving properties that never get to estate agents and private dealers I hope that the Minister will go into more detail in Committee about whether the Bill would cover that market. We also need to consider estate agency on the internet, especially when the transaction is not necessary financial. Organisations such as gumtree.com offer free publicity to properties for sale. Would such organisations by captured by the Bill?
	I commend the Government for extending legislation on door-to-door selling and cooling-off periods to circumstances in which appointments have been made. Elderly members of my family have been duped into buying a vacuum cleaner for more than £1,000, although it probably would have cost £40. The sale took place by appointment in response to a newspaper advertisement. People who are vulnerable, lonely and on their own are being taken advantage of.
	I was horrified when the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), who is no longer in the Chamber, said something along the lines of, "This is a useful vehicle for legislation that we need to take advantage of." I would prefer the remit of the legislation to be set out clearly in the Bill. I will want to probe Ministers in Committee to get more clarity. If there is an expansion of the remit beyond water, be that to financial services or another sector, we will need to understand how organisations will be able to interact with this place to ensure that we have a strong voice, rather than extra regulation that is a burden on those who are already doing a good job.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) talked about the publication of reports. I am flabbergasted that reports might be not published. Why on earth would the Government not consider publishing all reports on the website? Such reports will be paid for by the general public. It will be for the general public to decide whether they are of any relevance, not an organisation or, heaven forbid, Ministers. In Committee, or when the Under-Secretary replies, I hope that we will hear a commitment that all reports will be published on the website.

Mark Prisk: Today's debate is best described as short but surprisingly insightful; in that respect, it reminds me of the Minister for Trade. We have heard a number of contributions from Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) not only tested our ability to name his constituency but highlighted some of his concerns about the way in which the jigsaw will be put together. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) spoke of a common purpose. I confess that I was a little confused to hear her first suggest that more organisations should be involved in the Bill, and then ask why Postwatch and Energywatch were included. However, she went on to reiterate our concerns about the need to modernise the Estate Agents Act 1979.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), who is sadly not in the Chamber at the moment— [Interruption.] I beg his pardon for having missed him; he has moved from left to right, which is always a welcome direction. He highlighted the need for the Minister to reconsider the issue of positive licensing, and he rightly discussed whether residential lettings should come within the scope of the legislation. We then heard an excellent and comprehensive contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is of course the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. He put us all in our place, perhaps teasingly, by reminding us just how much we are trusted by the public—about as much as estate agents and journalists. He stressed that the debate should be about practice, not principle, and he raised a number of particularly good points about the remit, and the cost and quality of services, including railway services. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) will respond to those points.
	We then heard a contribution from the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who has consulted her local estate agents; I noticed that they would like the Government to go further in part 3. An excellent, albeit concise, contribution was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge). He rightly concentrated not on mechanisms, but on the point of view of individual consumers, and the effect that complaints and difficulties of the kind that we have discussed often have on them, particularly those in vulnerable communities. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith)—there have been a range of interesting Scottish constituency names tonight—rightly highlighted the current post office closures. He also mentioned the confusion in the energy market about billing, and about whether the market is operating effectively.
	Last but by no means least, we heard the excellent contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley). He raised several important points on behalf of his constituents, but he also raised concerns on behalf of small businesses, and he was absolutely right to do so. If I may say so without embarrassing him, he has experience in that field, and speaks with a passion on the subject, and I always find it enlightening to listen to his contribution. I am grateful to him and other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.
	At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) confirmed that although we have reservations about the Bill, we endorse the Government's aims and many of the measures in the legislation. As the Minister of State mentioned, pressure sales tactics are still catching people out. As a result, it is becoming increasingly clear that people need the same rights in respect of cancelling contracts that result from solicited sales visits as those that they have in relation to unsolicited visits. The current distinction is being exploited by the unscrupulous. Although I always begin from the principle of caveat emptor—buyer beware—in this instance, the evidence justifies a change in the law.
	We have significant reservations about certain aspects of the Bill and about how the legislation will work in practice. As the debate has shown, there are concerns about the planned merger of watchdogs, the future handling of complaints, and how transparent and effective the new regime may prove to be in practice. There is a strong sense that the Bill is a missed opportunity, to use the words of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, especially in relation to the regulation of estate agents. I shall address that point further in due course.
	As hon. Members have said, the first part of the Bill seeks to merge Energywatch, Postwatch and, in time, the Consumer Council for Water, into a new statutory national consumer council. The Minister of State told us at the beginning of the debate that the Government's purpose is to streamline and strengthen consumer advocacy—a perfectly reasonable aim—but the Government have yet to prove that the new arrangement will strengthen the voice of the consumer. It could well do so, if the merger is implemented effectively and efficiently, but sadly the Government have a pretty dreadful record on merging public bodies. For example, on health care, in my county alone, the Government have merged and remerged strategic health authorities three times in five years, wasting tens of millions of pounds.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East said, sometimes we have to fix the problem, not simply rearrange the deckchairs. Given that, and given the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, the Under-Secretary needs to show us, both here and in Committee, that sector-specific skills and experience in postal, energy and water services will not be lost in any merger, or during any transition. In particular, in view of the cuts that the Government are forcing on to the post office network, we will seek a cast-iron guarantee that the abolition of Postwatch will not mean a diminution of public representation at this crucial time. As the Under-Secretary is directly and personally responsible for Royal Mail, his reply to that point needs to be clear and unequivocal.
	Prior to this debate, serious concern was expressed by the water industry about the inclusion of the Consumer Council for Water in the new organisation, a move that many think premature. Indeed, several Members have echoed that concern today, not least because of the impending price review for water companies. We are encouraged to hear that the Minister of State recognises the problem and is considering constructive proposals for adjusting the merger timetable. We are happy to engage in open and positive debate on whether that should be achieved by bringing forward the price review, or by pushing the merger back, and we approach the subject with an open mind. There has certainly been no collusion, contrary to what the hon. Member for Richmond Park might assume. The reality is that we try to take a positive approach and to have an open mind on the subject.
	On part 2 of the Bill, which concerns redress schemes, I should first say that we were pleased that the Government accepted amendments from Conservatives peers in the other place. The amendments have improved the legislation; for example, complaints by gas consumers will now be investigated prior to any disconnection of supply, and not afterwards, as is the case at present. That change will resolve a long-standing grievance of many consumers. We want that constructive approach to the Bill to continue in the Commons.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton pointed out that there is a clear need to improve companies' internal complaints handling. As he said, the Government's wish to improve redress schemes should be matched by good internal complaints procedures. World-class businesses already ensure that, because they recognise the benefit for them and their customers. In the other place, the Government were willing to make only a small concession on that point, in clause 49; yet as we have heard today, there is a good case for effective complaint handling to be a pre-requisite of redress scheme membership. I hope that the Under-Secretary is prepared to reconsider the issue, both in his reply and in Committee.
	Today's debate highlighted an important concern about the relationship between the National Consumer Council and Whitehall. The existing council has, to date, enjoyed an arm's length relationship with the Government, and that has enabled it to develop a reputation for objectivity and a certain independent authority. That detached position is vital if consumer representation is to remain effective within Whitehall. The arrangement set out in the Bill may reduce that independence. Members on both sides of the House raised questions about the new financial arrangements and the lack of transparency in the NCC's proposed research and advocacy functions. If a new, larger council is to retain its objectivity, it is essential that it remain, and is seen to remain, detached from undue ministerial influence. I therefore urge the Under-Secretary to address that issue directly in his reply, and to set out clearly the nature of the proposed relationship, particularly between the Secretary of State and the new council.
	In his opening speech, the Minister of State spoke about the need to crack down on rogue estate agents. Sadly—and this does not bring me any comfort— the truth is that the Government have failed to match their rhetoric with action. While we welcome the measures to require estate agents to belong to an approved redress scheme, as well as the minor increase in powers for the Office of Fair Trading, that is as far as the Government are prepared to go. For many people, including the public and estate agents, those changes are inadequate. While most agents are competent and professional, a notable minority have been able to trade in an unacceptable manner. Sometimes it is a question of ethics, but sometimes it is a question of competence. For example, a  Which? magazine investigation in 2005 showed that estate agency valuations may vary wildly, sometimes by up to £125,000. On some occasions, agents deliberately withheld or misrepresented offers. As a result, according to the Consumers Association, 70 per cent. of people think estate agents frequently give misleading information about properties.
	Part of the legislative problem is that the original law dates back over 28 years. The Government's amendments to the Estate Agents Act 1979 merely tinker at the edges, and an overhaul is needed. We are therefore calling for the 1979 Act to be modernised by the Bill, and for a significant increase in the maximum fine to deter rogue agents. First, the definition of estate agency work must be extended. It should include recent trends such as off-plan sales and direct sales by house builders, which were rare in 1979 but are now commonplace, and are not covered by the law. Secondly, residential lettings must be incorporated into the regulations. Estate agencies, as we have heard, handle millions of such lettings and, according to the National Association of Estate Agents, problems with lettings are one of the main sources of complaints made against its members and against agents generally. As the Bill stands, that activity would not be covered, to the bemusement of millions of our constituents. At the beginning of the debate, the Minister of State spoke about a committee and a review, but he did not give a commitment to legislate. We shall therefore seek to press amendments to correct that omission, and I hope that we can work on a cross-party basis to improve the legislation. Those changes and the increase in fines will help home buyers, and assist the industry in cleaning up its act. Given that it is 28 years since the last piece of legislation in this area, I hope that we will not have to wait a similar period before we introduce new laws. However, I want to work with the Ministers to make sure that we achieve a positive outcome.
	There are many provisions in the Bill that will indeed help consumers in the utilities and residential property markets. While the Opposition have concerns about the practicalities, we have a long-standing commitment to the principle of informed consumer choice and effective advocacy, so we wish to improve the Bill, not to damage it. The Ministers enjoy the rough and tumble of party political banter, and so do I, but sometimes it is a distraction. All too often, it is used as an excuse for pushing legislation through the House unimproved. On this occasion, Members on both sides of the House have a genuine opportunity to scrutinise, amend and improve the Bill so that it will have a lasting impact on millions of consumers and house buyers. That collaborative approach will not please the press, who always love a row, but if Ministers are prepared to consider amendments on their merits, we are prepared to engage in proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill, which will not only be good for consumers, but will reflect well on the House.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful for the chance to respond to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The powers contained in the new clause are not especially radical. We have the power to cost-charge—that is in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. Neither is the power to over-cost charge especially new, because we have that in section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. We are trying to bring to bear a degree of flexibility and intelligence in how charges are set. That principle was widely welcomed in the statutory instrument debate that we had last week. This motion will allow us to ensure that there is a full and proper debate in Committee on the new clauses that we propose in advance of Report and Third Reading. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), who is representing the Liberal Democrats on that Committee, will forensically interrogate our proposals. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.
	 Question agreed to.

Michael Meacher: I do. One of the incentives for a private equity takeover is to avoid the kind of accountability that has always been at the forefront of public liability companies. Any reduction in that is extremely dangerous not just for employees, but for other stakeholders and particularly for shareholders, who are often kept in the dark as much as employees. I am aware of the setting up of an internal industry working party on disclosure under the City of London grandee, Sir David Walker. I welcome that as far as it goes. That is all very well, but it is no substitute for plc transparency, which is the minimum foundation for corporate accountability. In particular, there needs to be far greater transparency about the activities of some private equity firms—certainly not all, but some—in restructuring pre-existing company pension schemes, which may drastically affect workers' pension rights in future.
	Fourthly, private equity is at present largely self-regulating, which is not acceptable given the immense power that many major private equity-controlled firms now wield. I would like to quote briefly from Ernst and Young's insolvency report last year, which states:
	"the amount of credit that lenders are willing to extend on PE transactions has risen substantially. Lending limits are increasing, multiples are rising, transaction structures are being extended, and covenants are weakening".
	It went on to say:
	"In circumstances where many banks are involved in complex debt structures, due diligence is not as stringent. Banks are no longer in a position to sound the alarm if a company is too highly leveraged".
	That comes from an accounting company that has international prestige. It is carefully worded, but the Government should pay very careful attention to it.
	Fifthly, and most important of all, there need to be far greater rights and protection for the interests of employees in the companies that are taken over. If it is not to be casino capitalism—not necessarily my words, but that how this is often seen—where workers' jobs and lives are gambled like so many counters on the gaming table, the promises made beforehand on jobs by private equity predators, because that is how they are seen, to gain control of companies should be statutorily enforceable. Private equity firms should be required beforehand to provide a public interest certificate or statement of the expected and intended impacts of the takeover on jobs, pay and terms and conditions of employees, as well as on debt, investment and the longer-term future of the target company. That statement should be contractually binding for a stated period, at least as far as the employment of the workers is concerned.
	Those are just five key points—I could pick out a number of others, but they are the key ones—that the Government must urgently consider to allay the real concerns about current private equity operations. I look forward to their being addressed on Wednesday.